The camera was on the landing gear
BGOL Space: Famed Physicist Shuts Down Moon Landing Conspiracy Theorists
- Thread starter playahaitian
- Start date
this is the kind of thing i dont understand.
you couldve just googled this answer...and its a very SIMPLE answer.
nobody benefits from lying about going to the moon, and to believe it was faked is also to believe that Russia, China, and North Korea are in on it.
that right thurr is just stupid.
To people like that their question is the answer. They don't sincerely wanna know they just wanna be right lol
All types of folks benefit about lying going to the moon. Northrop Grumman. Lockheed Martin. IBM. Boeing. Where do you think all that money went?
But the most important beneficiary of this deception is the white man. White supremacy propaganda that they were the first humans to leave earth. Let that shit sink in.
Plus if they looked into the Antarctica Treaty of 1959 they would know why those countries would benefit.
why would Russia, China and North Korea lie for any of the companies you just named?
I can't believe half of y'all - dude got destroyed in the flat earth thread and now bumps this thread with his bullshit- and y'all cosigning instead of researching...
The Van Allen belts are a significant radiation hazard for both unmanned and manned spaceflight, so we do our best to spend as little time as possible within them. We keep our International Space Station (ISS) below the lower belt and we keep our GPS and communication satellites in the gap between the two belts.
The only time humans have crossed through the Van Allen belts was during the Apollo missions to the moon. The Apollo vehicles were traveling quite fast and only spent about 15 minutes in the most dangerous region and less than an hour total in the belts (each way). Their total exposure within the Van Allen belts during each leg of the journey was about 13 Rads and their shielding absorbed/deflected most of that. The Apollo crews experienced between 0.16-1.14 Rads during their mission.
To give an indication of scale. NASA restricts the career exposure of a male astronaut the age of the Apollo astronauts to around 300 Rads (coincidentally, an exposure to 300 Rads within one hour is the standard for a lethal dose.)
So, the key is to just not spend a lot of time in the belts.
Incidentally, there is a region called the South Atlantic anomaly (SAA) in which the offset between the geomagnetic and rotational axes causes the inner Van Allen belt to dip down lower. Most of the radiation exposure astronauts face in low Earth orbit is when they cross through the SAA. At 225 km the radiation is 100X increased compared to the rest of the orbit at that altitude and at 440 km the radiation is 1000x increased. The protection of the geomagnetic field at low altitude and the danger of the SAA is a big part of the reason why we do not allow the ISS to go higher than it is (as it is, ISS astronauts, in six months, receive about 6 times the maximum recommended radiation dosage for a person on Earth, in a year).
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
simple answer: you can't put your hand into a bowl of water at 90ÂşC without sustaining serious injury. But you can easily sit in a sauna with an air temperature of 90ÂşC
There is a difference between temperature and heat.
Temperature is a measure of how much energy individual particles have.
Heat is a measure of how much energy is contained by all the particles in a given volume.
The surface of the moon is pretty much a vacuum - not much heat energy overall.
as for solar radiation here are articles on human body and space travel and radiative equilibrium temperature
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium
baisically any object that is heated up will radiate heat away, the hotter it gets the greater the heat it radiates per second. So as the Sun is constant, eventually the object will reach a temperature at which it is radiating the same amount of heat as it is absorbing...
reasons we haven't been back - we don't have the ability to terraform or generate artificial gravity - a human body born on earth is not designed for living in micro gravity
none of those phenomena prevent space travel
The Van Allen belts are a significant radiation hazard for both unmanned and manned spaceflight, so we do our best to spend as little time as possible within them. We keep our International Space Station (ISS) below the lower belt and we keep our GPS and communication satellites in the gap between the two belts.
The only time humans have crossed through the Van Allen belts was during the Apollo missions to the moon. The Apollo vehicles were traveling quite fast and only spent about 15 minutes in the most dangerous region and less than an hour total in the belts (each way). Their total exposure within the Van Allen belts during each leg of the journey was about 13 Rads and their shielding absorbed/deflected most of that. The Apollo crews experienced between 0.16-1.14 Rads during their mission.
To give an indication of scale. NASA restricts the career exposure of a male astronaut the age of the Apollo astronauts to around 300 Rads (coincidentally, an exposure to 300 Rads within one hour is the standard for a lethal dose.)
So, the key is to just not spend a lot of time in the belts.
Incidentally, there is a region called the South Atlantic anomaly (SAA) in which the offset between the geomagnetic and rotational axes causes the inner Van Allen belt to dip down lower. Most of the radiation exposure astronauts face in low Earth orbit is when they cross through the SAA. At 225 km the radiation is 100X increased compared to the rest of the orbit at that altitude and at 440 km the radiation is 1000x increased. The protection of the geomagnetic field at low altitude and the danger of the SAA is a big part of the reason why we do not allow the ISS to go higher than it is (as it is, ISS astronauts, in six months, receive about 6 times the maximum recommended radiation dosage for a person on Earth, in a year).
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
1. this is not true -
simple answer: you can't put your hand into a bowl of water at 90ÂşC without sustaining serious injury. But you can easily sit in a sauna with an air temperature of 90ÂşC
There is a difference between temperature and heat.
Temperature is a measure of how much energy individual particles have.
Heat is a measure of how much energy is contained by all the particles in a given volume.
The surface of the moon is pretty much a vacuum - not much heat energy overall.
as for solar radiation here are articles on human body and space travel and radiative equilibrium temperature
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium
baisically any object that is heated up will radiate heat away, the hotter it gets the greater the heat it radiates per second. So as the Sun is constant, eventually the object will reach a temperature at which it is radiating the same amount of heat as it is absorbing...
read what I wrote above - and then look at this diagram
reasons we haven't been back - we don't have the ability to terraform or generate artificial gravity - a human body born on earth is not designed for living in micro gravity
- it wasn't the dark side but it was close to the horizon, also sunlight reflects off of the Earth too - see diagram I posted above
like I wrote above light reflected off of earth... and the location of the landing wasn't directly visible to the sun- as to why no stars in pics- light pollution similar to what happens in NYC - take a pic in times square, good luck if you think you'll get stars in the sky
it isn't dark like a closed closet - its "dark" cause we don't see it from earth - but its orbit puts it directly in sunlight for half the month- also the moon does get reflected light from the earth
moon does get a lot of reflected light from the earthThere's 1 fucking sun in our solar system!
That's the only source of light close enough
To cast/cause shadows in those pictures!
!
Last edited:
I never bought that Cold War bullshit. That was all propaganda. A war is killing another country's citizens. Talking shit is just playing good cop/bad cop. They on the same team at the end of the day.
this is bullshit... these guys are arguing a light source as the sun never considering a solar horizon and reflections off of earth
this pic is bullshit too:
not only is this possible -photographers should recognize this -
The reflections off the moon rover and the proximity to astronaut will light the suit - there is nothing close enough for light to bounce off to illuminate the wheels !
I can't believe half of y'all - dude got destroyed in the flat earth thread and now bumps this thread with his bullshit- and y'all cosigning instead of researching...
none of those phenomena prevent space travel
The Van Allen belts are a significant radiation hazard for both unmanned and manned spaceflight, so we do our best to spend as little time as possible within them. We keep our International Space Station (ISS) below the lower belt and we keep our GPS and communication satellites in the gap between the two belts.
The only time humans have crossed through the Van Allen belts was during the Apollo missions to the moon. The Apollo vehicles were traveling quite fast and only spent about 15 minutes in the most dangerous region and less than an hour total in the belts (each way). Their total exposure within the Van Allen belts during each leg of the journey was about 13 Rads and their shielding absorbed/deflected most of that. The Apollo crews experienced between 0.16-1.14 Rads during their mission.
To give an indication of scale. NASA restricts the career exposure of a male astronaut the age of the Apollo astronauts to around 300 Rads (coincidentally, an exposure to 300 Rads within one hour is the standard for a lethal dose.)
So, the key is to just not spend a lot of time in the belts.
Incidentally, there is a region called the South Atlantic anomaly (SAA) in which the offset between the geomagnetic and rotational axes causes the inner Van Allen belt to dip down lower. Most of the radiation exposure astronauts face in low Earth orbit is when they cross through the SAA. At 225 km the radiation is 100X increased compared to the rest of the orbit at that altitude and at 440 km the radiation is 1000x increased. The protection of the geomagnetic field at low altitude and the danger of the SAA is a big part of the reason why we do not allow the ISS to go higher than it is (as it is, ISS astronauts, in six months, receive about 6 times the maximum recommended radiation dosage for a person on Earth, in a year).
http://www.braeunig.us/apollo/VABraddose.htm
1. this is not true -
simple answer: you can't put your hand into a bowl of water at 90ÂşC without sustaining serious injury. But you can easily sit in a sauna with an air temperature of 90ÂşC
There is a difference between temperature and heat.
Temperature is a measure of how much energy individual particles have.
Heat is a measure of how much energy is contained by all the particles in a given volume.
The surface of the moon is pretty much a vacuum - not much heat energy overall.
as for solar radiation here is an article on radiative equilibrium temperature
http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/space-human-body/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium
baisically any object that is heated up will radiate heat away, the hotter it gets the greater the heat it radiates per second. So as the Sun is constant, eventually the object will reach a temperature at which it is radiating the same amount of heat as it is absorbing...
read what I wrote above - and then look at this diagram
reasons we haven't been back - we don't have the ability to terraform or generate artificial gravity - a human body born on earth is not designed for living in micro gravity
- it wasn't the dark side but it was close to the horizon, also sunlight reflects off of the Earth too - see diagram I posted above
like I wrote above light reflected off of earth... and the location of the landing wasn't directly visible to the sun- as to why no stars in pics- light pollution similar to what happens in NYC - take a pic in times square, good luck if you think you'll get stars in the sky
it isn't dark like a closed closet - its "dark" cause we don't see it from earth - but its orbit puts it directly in sunlight for half the month- also the moon does get reflected light from the earth
moon does get a lot of reflected light from the earth
This has been discussed on the board for awhile now.
http://www.bgol.us/forum/index.php?threads/some-good-points-on-moon-landing-hoax.676837/
my man...if you think Russia, China and North Korea were just playing a role and united in this, theres no hope for you.
what you just did is the mental equivalent of shitting the bed.
i will not fuck with you about this anymore...believe what you want.
you motherfuckers!
you gave room for this guy to bring in the flat earth bullshit again!
dude - you never answered the last round in the flat earth thread -
the van allen belt - thermosphere etc - were dealt with in the other thread... but you want to reopen the argument here?
you gave room for this guy to bring in the flat earth bullshit again!
dude - you never answered the last round in the flat earth thread -
the van allen belt - thermosphere etc - were dealt with in the other thread... but you want to reopen the argument here?
I stopped arguing because there is no point, y'all niggas are far too gone, the cognitive dissonance is too great for y'all to bear. The earth IS FLAT but I'm not even here to talk about that. Nobody's been to the moon. It's not possible. And as time goes on, you will have no choice but to wake the fuck up because they can't fake the shit anymore.
Don't worry......
I'll wait.
I'm not sure how any black man can have so much faith in the US government in the face of such damning scientific evidence. Personal international beefs and 'presumptive motivations' aside, the science says human space travel is impossible. You can defend these crackas all you want. Not me.
stop the bullshit - your best argument /video against satellites and about the thermosphere etc got destroyed with a little science and you ran away
as for the moon... have faith in what you want - cause the facts don't support you
Stop lyin bruh. I fucked y'all's heads up for 40 pages straight and still would be if I didn't have shit to do. I have even MORE evidence now to shut you clowns up, but like I said, you like holdin onto white ballsacks so I'm gonna let you get back to that. Carry on.
your last reply to me was I'll have to get back to you... then your alter 14damoney took over!
read a real book... science is verified and tested not dreamed up -
there are decades of experiments on radiation microgravity etc and effects on humans
there is math that these guys wouldn't have without making the actual trips...
but feel free to keep wallowing in your ignorance - one day in future just remember you CHOSE the fantasy
No it's cheese
Can't you see the sun, moon, stars and other planets from the ISS or shuttle missions in pics?
this is bullshit... these guys are arguing a light source as the sun never considering a solar horizon and reflections off of earth
this pic is bullshit too:
not only is this possible -photographers should recognize this -
The reflections off the moon rover and the proximity to astronaut will light the suit - there is nothing close enough for light to bounce off to illuminate the wheels !
Yo, just where would light reflect off of this vehicle to illuminate and entire suit on one side?
Even if it did wouldn't it be diffused light and not direct light?
What would on that buggy would be powerful enough to bounce concentrated light in a pretty much concentrated, singular direction to make his suit light up but nothing else...not the ground where his feet are, not the left front side of his boot...nothing else?
during the late 60s and early 70s the us government literally lied about everything to fools its people
and yet people believe this moon bullshit
sighs....the only thing i dont understand is why russia didnt blow their spot up (but they couldve been playing the same game to fool their people too)
and yet people believe this moon bullshit
sighs....the only thing i dont understand is why russia didnt blow their spot up (but they couldve been playing the same game to fool their people too)
The Astronauts were exposed to DIRECT sunlight in the pictures
Unfiltered DIRECT sunlight since the Moon has no atmosphere.
So that's direct exposure to Cosmic Rays. They were on the Moon for 22 hours.
A dose of 1 sievert is associated with a 5.5 percent increase in the risk of fatal cancers
The normal daily radiation dose received by the average person living on Earth is 10 microsieverts (0.00001 Sievert)]
You don't think standing in direct sunlight would expose them to higher than a 1 sievert level?
The surface of the Moon is baldly exposed to cosmic rays and solar flares, and some of that
radiation is very hard to stop with shielding. Furthermore, when cosmic rays hit the ground,
they produce a dangerous spray of secondary particles right at your feet. All this radiation penetrating
human flesh can damage DNA, boosting the risk of cancer and other maladies
DARK SIDE OF MOON
This doesn't address his point....He said all that sunlight came from other stars
there is no light pollution in orbitCan't you see the sun, moon, stars and other planets from the ISS or shuttle missions in pics?
Yo, just where would light reflect off of this vehicle to illuminate and entire suit on one side?
Even if it did wouldn't it be diffused light and not direct light?
What would on that buggy would be powerful enough to bounce concentrated light in a pretty much concentrated, singular direction to make his suit light up but nothing else...not the ground where his feet are, not the left front side of his boot...nothing else?
light pollution on the surface of the moon is light reflecting off the moon - like the times square or anywhere in NYC- the light from signs lamps etc bounces up off the ground - look at the clouds reflecting it back
as for the rover - the entire vehicle is reflecting light- its painted white- and that's not direct light on his front the astronaut is less than 2 feet from the rover and his back is much much brighter than his front - he pretty much has a vertical horizon on his body
LMAO...ninja you and science are not on speaking terms.
Says bruh, what planets those is in those photos? I don't see stars. That's a set for a movie.there is no light pollution in orbit
light pollution on the surface of the moon is light reflecting off the moon - like the times square or anywhere in NYC- the light from signs lamps etc bounces up off the ground - look at the clouds reflecting it back
as for the rover - the entire vehicle is reflecting light- its painted white- and that's not direct light on his front the astronaut is less than 2 feet from the rover and his back is much much brighter than his front - he pretty much has a vertical horizon on his body
In my posts I said the landing wasn't in direct sunlight - the light was over the moon horizon combined with reflected sunlight from the earth - I also posted links explaining heat and radiation in a vacuum- and how it affects human body - and the math for trips surviving the van allen belt etc....
yeah - I'm telling you it was indirect sunlight reflected off of earth - the landing was near the horizon separating light and dark sides of the moon
No, NASA said it was from 3 different sources
Sunlight, Earth and reflection from the Lunar Module
Anyway, AS15-82-11057 & AS15-82-11082
Two photos taken from Apollo 15
Tell me that aint fake....PLEASE
Yet they exposed for the earth perfectly in this image.
Based on the levels in that pic, I have to respectfully disagree. I just don't see how those levels could project that much concentrated light off of a not completely solid, non-concentrated white image, with a broken and not concentrated dispersal pattern.
Maybe if the other astronaut had used one of these below, then I would be more inclined to agree.
One last question, do you know what fiducials are and how they are used?
coming from someone into photography and control of light - its obvious to me what the light sources and throws are in that photo
Why do you consider these fakes?
Did you look at the backgrounds? Hahah they are they SAME
1. earth is one of the light sources in that picture - It is infinitely closer and larger in field of view than any other body in the universe - and its out of focus.Yet they exposed for the earth perfectly in this image.
Based on the levels in that pic, I have to respectfully disagree. I just don't see how those levels could project that much concentrated light off of a not completely solid, non-concentrated white image, with a broken and not concentrated dispersal pattern.
Maybe if the other astronaut had used one of these below, then I would be more inclined to agree.
One last question, do you know what fiducials are and how they are used?
No big deal it would be like taking a picture in a dim room and penlight is on behind your subject - no change of focus shutter or aperture needed - it will show up in the picture - even with the flash on
2. as for the example with a reflector...
again light pollution - there is so much ambient light being diffused in the air alone-
(sea level, higher humidity, falling barometer= even more pollution than in the pic), then add in the amount of light bouncing off the sand - then everything else around them. On the moon surface - no air, also no plethora of objects reflecting light - only the sand on the moon surface
3. as for fiducials - yes
